Analysis of Electric Dipole Moment of $^{225}$Ra Atom using the Relativistic Normal Coupled-cluster Theory

B. K. Sahoo; R. Mitra; V. S. Prasannaa

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 50 references

Analysis of Electric Dipole Moment of $^{225}$Ra Atom using the Relativistic Normal Coupled-cluster Theory

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Relativistic normal coupled-cluster pins down the 225Ra EDM enhancement factors.

desk verdict First RNCC calculation for 225Ra is a serious cross-check with a solid alpha_d sanity check, but the recommended EDM values rest on a post hoc choice of the d-perturbed variants and the abstract oversells the averaging. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03722 v1 pith:5FXCZ2YX submitted 2019-08-10 physics.atom-ph

V. S. Prasannaa , R. Mitra , B. K. Sahoo This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.atom-ph PACS 31.15.bw32.10.Dk11.30.Er

keywords electricdipolemomentradium-225Schifftensor-pseudotensorinteractionrelativisticnormalcoupled-clusterpolarizabilityCPviolation

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to settle the atomic enhancement factors that will convert a future electric dipole moment (EDM) measurement in 225Ra into bounds on CP-violating physics. Earlier relativistic coupled-cluster (RCC) results for these factors disagreed with other many-body methods by about 40%. Because 225Ra has an exceptionally large octupole deformation, its EDM is enhanced by about three orders of magnitude relative to 129Xe and 199Hg, so accurate atomic factors are especially valuable. To resolve the discrepancy, the authors apply the relativistic normal coupled-cluster (RNCC) method, whose wave-function normalization is unity by construction and whose EDM expression terminates naturally. From the dipole-perturbed RCCSD and RNCCSD calculations they recommend enhancement factors of $-6.29(1)\times10^{-17}\,|e|\,\mathrm{cm}/(|e|\,\mathrm{fm}^3)$ for the nuclear Schiff moment and $-12.66(14)\times10^{-20}\,\langle\sigma_N\rangle|e|\,\mathrm{cm}$ for the tensor-pseudotensor electron-nucleus interaction, together with a static dipole polarizability of $244(13)\,e a_0^3$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the relativistic normal coupled-cluster (RNCC) wave function, which uses a bi-orthogonal bra state $\langle\tilde{\Psi}_0| = \langle\Phi_0|(1+\Lambda)e^{-T}$ so that the normalization $\langle\tilde{\Psi}_0|\Psi_0\rangle = 1$ is exact by construction. This removes the approximate cancellation of disconnected normalization terms that plagues truncated RCC theory and makes the EDM expression terminate naturally while satisfying the Hellmann-Feynman theorem. The paper also uses two mathematically equivalent perturbation routes, perturbing the wave function with the P,T-odd Hamiltonian (the 'w' variants) or with the electric dipole operator (the 'd' variants); the d variants converge smoothly and give consistent RCC and RNCC results, which is why the recommended values are based on them.

What would settle it

A calculation with full connected triple excitations in both RCC and RNCC, or a direct experimental measurement of the 225Ra dipole polarizability, would test the recommendation: if the dipole-perturbed EDM factors shift by more than their quoted 1% and 1.1% uncertainties, or if $\alpha_d$ falls outside $244\pm13\,e a_0^3$, the smooth-convergence criterion for reliability is called into question.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the relativistic normal coupled-cluster (RNCC) method removes the normalization ambiguity of truncated relativistic coupled-cluster (RCC) theory, and that when the EDM is computed by perturbing with the dipole operator rather than with the P,T-odd Hamiltonian, the RCCSD and RNCCSD results agree closely. On this basis the paper recommends $d_a^{\mathrm{NSM}} = -6.29(1)\times10^{-17}|e|\,\mathrm{cm}/(|e|\,\mathrm{fm}^3)$ and $d_a^{\mathrm{T-PT}} = -12.66(14)\times10^{-20}\langle\sigma_N\rangle|e|\,\mathrm{cm}$ for 225Ra, with a static dipole polarizability $\alpha_d = 244(13)\,e a_0^3$ used as a corroborating benchmark.

Load-bearing premise

The recommended values assume that the dipole-perturbed (d) variants are the reliable ones because their first-order wave functions converge smoothly, and that the spread between the RCCSDd and RNCCSDd results is a fair estimate of the remaining uncertainty.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A 225Ra EDM measurement with limit $|d_a| \le L$ can be converted into independent bounds on the nuclear Schiff moment and the T-PT coupling by dividing $L$ by $6.29(1)\times10^{-17}$ and $12.66(14)\times10^{-20}$, respectively.
The recommended $\alpha_d = 244(13)\,e a_0^3$ gives a target that future many-body calculations should reproduce, and because it agrees with earlier RCC values it supports the reliability of the d-variant EDM results.
The close agreement between RCCSDd and RNCCSDd suggests that the dipole-perturbation route is the numerically safer way to compute EDMs in truncated coupled-cluster theories, even when the weak-interaction-perturbed route is the formal definition.
The large spread among the w variants implies that previous RCC-only EDM calculations that relied on the weak-perturbation route may have uncertainties of tens of percent, and should be re-examined with the d route.
Because the RNCC expression terminates naturally, the method can be extended to higher excitations (e.g., triples) without the disconnected-diagram cancellation ambiguity that grows with truncation level.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A sharper test of the recommended values would be to compute the same EDM enhancement factors using full triple excitations in both RCC and RNCC; the paper itself notes that triples may improve the agreement, but does not include them.
The difference between the w and d routes could be used as a diagnostic for basis-set completeness: in the complete-basis, full-correlation limit the two routes must give identical values, so their residual disagreement measures the combined truncation error.
The same RCCSDd/RNCCSDd agreement criterion could be applied to other octupole-deformed nuclei, such as 225Ac or 229Pa, where method spreads of similar size may affect EDM interpretation.
The averaging choice matters: using all four variants (w and d for both methods) would change the recommended T-PT factor by about 5% relative to the d-only average, so the stated uncertainty may under-represent the method spread.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know before anything else. This is the first RNCC calculation of the 225Ra EDM enhancement factors, for a system with a live experimental program, and the alpha_d value, 244(13) ea0^3, overlaps the earlier accurate calculations (241-251 ea0^3), a decent sanity check. But the recommended EDM numbers come from a post hoc choice of the dipole-perturbed variants, and the abstract describes the averaging in a way the body does not support.

What is genuinely good: the machinery is standard, parameter-free, and the term-by-term tables are detailed enough to audit where the numbers come from. The RNCC vs RCC comparison for this atom is new, and the two-perturbation-route (w vs d) diagnostic is a sensible cross-check even if the conclusion is debatable.

The soft spot is real and is the same one the referee report will land on. The abstract says the recommended values are an average of two variants each of both methods, but the body averages only RCCSDd and RNCCSDd. The w-perturbed values disagree: for T-PT, RCCSDw gives -9.77, RNCCSDw gives -13.15, and the earlier RCCSD(T) result from the same group is -10.01. The defense is that the d amplitudes converge smoothly while the w amplitudes are slow and large in early iterations. Smooth convergence is a stability criterion, not an accuracy criterion. Two calculations that share the same D operator can agree because they share the same flaw.

The paper knows the tension. Sec. III says the w-route expression, Eq. (6), should be treated as more appropriate than the d-route recasting, and later it admits triples may be needed for much better agreement. Then Sec. IV recommends the d-route values, with error bars (+/-0.14, +/-0.01) that cover only the two d-variants, not the four-way spread (about 3.4 for T-PT, 0.87 for NSM). That is not a demonstrated numerical error, but the recommendation procedure is not justified as written.

I would not desk-reject. The alpha_d analysis is a legitimate calibration check, the RNCC application is novel for this atom, and the tables are useful. A serious referee could get it into publishable shape by requiring an abstract that describes the actual averaging, an honest quote of the four-way spread, a defense of why the d-variants beat the w-route when the paper itself says the w-route is formally more appropriate, and less finality for the SD-level numbers. No code or data is provided, so the numerics can't be independently checked, which is common in this subfield but worth noting. The citation pattern is unremarkable; self-citations are to method papers and prior RCC work.

For a reading group on atomic EDM calculations, this is a useful case study in how method uncertainty gets converted into recommended values. Send it to peer review, but expect heavy revision.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript applies the relativistic normal coupled-cluster (RNCC) method at the singles-and-doubles level to compute the electric dipole moment enhancement factors of 225Ra due to the nuclear Schiff moment (NSM) and the tensor-pseudotensor (T-PT) electron-nucleus interaction, and also the static dipole polarizability alpha_d. The authors develop both weak-interaction-perturbed (w) and dipole-perturbed (d) variants within RCCSD and RNCCSD, solve the corresponding amplitude equations, and tabulate individual correlation contributions. They recommend final enhancement factors -6.29(1) x 10^-17 |e| cm/(|e| fm^3) and -12.66(14) x 10^-20 <sigma_N> |e| cm, obtained by averaging the RCCSDd and RNCCSDd results, and an alpha_d of 244(13) ea0^3 obtained by averaging the RCCSD and RNCCSD alpha_d values. The paper also compares all results with previous RCC, RPA, and CI+MBPT calculations.

Significance. If the recommended EDM enhancement factors are reliable, they would serve as important benchmarks for extracting CP-violating couplings from the ongoing 225Ra EDM experiment. The RNCC treatment is methodologically interesting because it avoids the non-terminating series and normalization ambiguity of the RCC approach, and the alpha_d value is consistent with several earlier high-level calculations. The paper provides a useful comparison of term-by-term contributions between RCC and RNCC. The main weakness is that the central recommendation rests on a post hoc choice of the d-perturbation results whose justification contradicts the paper's own statement that the w-perturbation expression is more appropriate, and the quoted uncertainties do not reflect the full spread of the computed values.

major comments (5)

[Abstract and Table I] The abstract states that the recommended EDM values are an average of the results from two variants each of both the RCC and RNCC methods, but Table I shows that the T-PT and NSM recommendations are exactly the averages of RCCSDd and RNCCSDd only: (-12.519-12.803)/2 = -12.661 and (-6.284-6.295)/2 = -6.2895. The w-variant results (-9.774 and -13.148 for T-PT; -6.183 and -7.053 for NSM) are excluded without being reflected in the stated central values. This discrepancy between the abstract and the actual procedure must be corrected and the basis for excluding the w-variants stated explicitly.
[Sec. III (Eqs. (6) and (8)) and Sec. IV] The paper says in Sec. III that Eq. (6) 'should be treated as being more appropriate than Eq. (8)' and that Eq. (8) is 'just a mathematical recast.' However, the recommended EDM values are based on the d-perturbation variants that implement the recast expression (Eq. (8) or its analogue). No argument is given for why numerical convergence should override the formal preference for Eq. (6), so the selection of the d-variants for the final recommendation appears post hoc relative to the stated theoretical preference.
[Sec. IV, convergence discussion] The justification for preferring the RCCSDd and RNCCSDd results is that the first-order perturbed amplitudes due to the dipole operator 'converge smoothly' whereas the w amplitudes are 'unusually large in the first few iterations.' This is a statement about the numerical stability of the Jacobi iteration, not about the physical accuracy of the truncated many-body expansion. Two methods that share the same perturbation operator D can agree because they share the same systematic error, and agreement alone does not establish correctness; no independent accuracy benchmark is provided for the EDM enhancement factors.
[Sec. IV, uncertainty estimates] The quoted uncertainties, +/-0.14 for T-PT and +/-0.01 for NSM, are simply half the difference between the RCCSDd and RNCCSDd results. They do not include the spread among all four variants (about 3.4 for T-PT and 0.87 for NSM), the estimated effect of triples (which the text says 'may lead to a much better agreement' in the alpha_d analysis), or the Breit/QED contributions that are neglected based on Ref. [21]. The recommended error bars therefore understate the theoretical uncertainty and should be recomputed to reflect all identified error sources.
[Table I and Sec. IV] The recommended T-PT central value, -12.66, differs from the earlier RCCSD(T) result -10.01 of Ref. [21] by about 26%, which is far outside the quoted uncertainty. Since the earlier result includes partial triples, the paper needs to explain why the SD-level d-variant values should replace it, or demonstrate that the triples contribution is already captured differently. Without such an explanation, the recommendation conflicts with the highest-order previous calculation listed in the paper's own comparison table.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. III, after Eq. (8)] The phrase 'It to be noted that' should be 'It is to be noted that.'
[Tables II-IV] The tables use a dagger on the Lambda operator (e.g., Lambda^(0)_1^dagger D T^(1)_1) although the RNCC expectation values in Eqs. (35)-(36) do not involve a Hermitian conjugate of Lambda; please clarify the notation for the bra-side de-excitation operator or use a consistent convention.
[Sec. IV, first paragraph] The text 'we find that the they are very similar' contains a typo and should read 'we find that they are very similar.'
[Figure captions] The figures are labeled with Roman numerals (Fig. I, II, III); while not incorrect, Arabic numerals would be more consistent with standard journal style.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No definitional or fit-based circularity; post hoc d-variant selection and non-load-bearing self-citations warrant a low cautionary score.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained: the RCC and RNCC EDM numbers in Table I are direct, parameter-free evaluations against the Dirac-Coulomb Hamiltonian, with no target EDM used as input and no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The recommended T-PT and NSM values are explicit averages of the computed RCCSDd and RNCCSDd entries in Table I, so the arithmetic is transparent rather than circular. The alpha_d benchmark is compared with independent earlier RCC calculations and is not used to force the EDM outputs. Self-citations (Refs. [21], [25], [26], [46]) are contextual rather than load-bearing: the normalization-free and terminating properties of the RNCC method are re-derived in Eqs. (14)-(19) from the external Bishop/Arponen formalism, and the earlier RCC value is recomputed in this work. The main caveat is that the d-variant subset is selected after seeing that it is internally consistent, and the abstract's phrase 'two variants each of both' does not match the actual d-only average; this is a post hoc reliability judgment and a correctness risk, not a definitional circularity. The paper also concedes that triples 'may lead to a much better agreement,' which flags a possible incompleteness but again is not a circular step. On balance, there is no circular reduction of the central claim to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculations introduce no fitted physics constants or invented entities. The main hand-chosen inputs are the GTO basis parameters and the error-bar assignments. The largest conceptual burden is the methodological assumption that the d-perturbation variants are the reliable ones and that the spread between two methods is a fair uncertainty. The nuclear-structure operators are borrowed from prior work, so the atomic calculation inherits those assumptions.

free parameters (2)

GTO active orbital space and energy cutoffs = 20s, 19p, 18d, 16f, 12g; cutoffs 3500, 2500, 1800, 600, 500 au
Hand-chosen basis parameters. Contributions from outside this space were checked by second-order perturbation theory and called negligible, but no systematic basis-set convergence study is reported for the EDM operators.
Recommended uncertainty intervals = 0.01 (NSM), 0.14 (T-PT), 13 (alpha_d) in the quoted units
These are half-differences between two method values, chosen by hand as error estimates; they are not derived from a statistical model or a systematic error budget.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The Dirac-Coulomb Hamiltonian is sufficient for the present accuracy; Breit and QED interaction contributions are small enough to neglect.
Assumed in Sec. III and Sec. IV, citing Ref. [21] rather than a calculation in this paper.
domain assumption P,T-odd interactions can be treated as first-order perturbations, with O(lambda^2) neglected.
Sec. III, Eqs. (5)-(6); standard for weak P,T-odd interactions.
domain assumption Truncation to singles and doubles (RCCSD/RNCCSD) captures the dominant electron correlation for the EDM enhancement factors.
Sec. III and IV use T = T1 + T2 and Lambda = Lambda1 + Lambda2; triple excitations excluded.
domain assumption EPV diagram contributions cancel properly through direct and exchange terms in the implementation.
Sec. IV states EPV diagrams are adopted and unphysical contributions cancel via Fermi-Dirac statistics.
standard math The RNCC bra state (1 + Lambda) exp(-T) is bi-orthogonal to the ket and satisfies the Hellmann-Feynman theorem so Eq. (19) is valid.
Sec. III, Eqs. (14)-(19), based on Arponen and Bishop formalism.
ad hoc to paper The recommendation to average only d-perturbation results is a valid estimator of the central value.
Sec. IV presents the d variants as more reliable because of smooth convergence and then averages only those.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analysis of Electric Dipole Moment of $^{225}$Ra Atom using the Relativistic Normal Coupled-cluster Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5FXCZ2YX

@misc{pith2026190803722,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analysis of Electric Dipole Moment of $^225$Ra Atom using the Relativistic Normal Coupled-cluster Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5FXCZ2YX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03722}
}

abstract

In view of the large differences in the previous calculations of enhancement factors to the parity and time-reversal violating (P,T-odd) electric dipole moment (EDM) of $^{225}$Ra due to nuclear Schiff moment (NSM) and tensor-pseudotensor (T-PT) electron-nucleus (e-N) interactions between the relativistic coupled-cluster (RCC) theory and other many-body methods, we employ the relativistic normal coupled-cluster (RNCC) theory to explain the discrepancies. The normalization of the wave function in the RNCC theory becomes unity by construction. This feature removes the ambiguity associated with the uncertainties in calculations that could arise due to mismatch in cancellation of the normalization factor of the wave function in a truncated RCC method. Moreover, all the terms in the expression for EDM using the RNCC method naturally terminate, in contrast to the RCC approach. By taking an average of the results from two variants each of both the RCC and RNCC methods, we recommend enhancement factors to the EDM of 225Ra due to NSM as $-$6.29(1) $\times 10^{-17} |e| $cm $( |e| fm^3)$ and due to T-PT e-N coupling constant as $-$12.66(14) $\times {10^{-20} \langle \sigma_N \rangle | e | }$cm, for the nuclear Pauli spinor, $\sigma_N$. This is corroborated by analyzing the dipole polarizability ($\alpha_d$) value of $^{225}$Ra, which is obtained as 244(13) $ea_0^3$. We also compare our results for all three properties with previous calculations that employ different many-body methods. Our $\alpha_d$ value agrees very well with the results that are obtained by carrying out rigorous analyses using other variants of RCC methods.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

[21]

Spevak, N

V. Spevak, N. Auerbach, and V.V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. C 56, 1357 (1997)

work page 1997
[1]

Analysis of Electric Dipole Moment of $^{225}$Ra Atom using the Relativistic Normal Coupled-cluster Theory

We also compare our results for all three properties with previous calculations that employ diﬀerent many-body methods. Our αd value agrees very well with the results that are obtained by carrying out rigorous analyses using other variants of RCC methods. I. INTRODUCTION Atomic systems are excellent candidates to probe elec- tric dipole moments (EDMs), wh...

work page Pith review arXiv 1908
[2]

Borschevsky et al [36] performed calculations to obtain αd using an uncontracted universal basis set in the rel- ativistic CCSD(T) method (RCCSD(T) method)

Later, they had revised its value to 251.12 ea3 0 [35] by using a j-averaged scalar relativistic pseudo poten- tial (ARPP) and allowing correlation among the outer- core and valence electrons in the CCSD(T) method. Borschevsky et al [36] performed calculations to obtain αd using an uncontracted universal basis set in the rel- ativistic CCSD(T) method (RCC...

work page
[3]

All these RCC meth- ods adopt the ﬁnite-ﬁeld approach to evaluate αd. An- other calculation by Chattopadhyay et al [37] reported its value as 242.42 ea3 0 using the perturbed RCC theory like ours (denoted by PRCC method) by considering the Dirac-Coulomb-Breit Hamiltonian. Our earlier calcula- tion using RCCSD method and including the corrections from part...

work page
[4]

By taking an average of the values from the RCCSD and RNCCSD methods employed in this work, we get an αd of 243.514 ea3

work page
[5]

This value is in agreement with the above ﬁndings

Taking into account deviation of RCCSD and RNCCSD results from the average value, we recommend a value of 244(13) ea3 0 forαd of the Ra atom. This value is in agreement with the above ﬁndings. From these analyses of the αd result, we draw the conclusion that RCCSD method gives a lower estimate to a possible true value. It may be due to unequal cancellatio...

work page
[6]

I. B. Khriplovich and S. Lamoreaux, CP Violation Without Strangeness, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg (1997)

work page 1997
[8]

V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, J. S. M. Ginges, and M. G. Kozlov, Phys. Rev. A 66, 012111 (2002)

work page 2002

Show all 50 references

[9]

Luders, Ann

G. Luders, Ann. Phys. 281, 1004 (2000)

2000
[11]

Fukuyama, Int

T. Fukuyama, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 27, 16, 1230015 (2012)

2012
[12]

A. D. Sakharov, Sov. Phys. Usp. 34, 392 (1991) [J. Exp. Th. Phys. 5, 24 (1967)]

1991
[13]

Canetti, M

L. Canetti, M. Drewes, and M. Shaposhnikov, New J. Phys. 14, 095012 (2012)

2012
[14]

S. M. Barr, Phys. Rev. D 45, 4148 (1992)

1992
[15]

Allmendinger et al , arXiv:1904.12295 (2019)

F. Allmendinger et al , arXiv:1904.12295 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[16]

Sachdeva et al , arXiV 1902.02864 (2019)

N. Sachdeva et al , arXiV 1902.02864 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[17]

M. A. Rosenberry and T. E. Chupp, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 22 (2001)

2001
[18]

Graner, Y

B. Graner, Y. Chen, E. G. Lindashl, and B. R. Heckel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 161601 (2016)

2016
[19]

Bishof et al , Phys

M. Bishof et al , Phys. Rev. C 94, 025501 (2016)

2016
[20]

Auerbach, V

N. Auerbach, V. V. Flambaum, and V. Spevak Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 4316 (1996)

1996
[22]

Guest et al , Phys

J.R. Guest et al , Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 093001 (2007)

2007
[23]

R. H. Parker et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 233002 (2015)

2015
[24]

M. G. Kozlov and L. N. Labzowsky, J. Phys. B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 28, 10 (1995)

1995
[25]

Yamanaka, B

N. Yamanaka, B. K. Sahoo, N. Yoshinaga, T. Sato, K. Asahi, and B. P. Das, Eur. Phys. J. A 53, 54 (2017)

2017
[26]

Singh and B

Y. Singh and B. K. Sahoo, Phys. Rev. A 92, 022502 (2015)

2015
[27]

Singh and B

Y. Singh and B. K. Sahoo, Phys. Rev. A 91, 030501(R) (2015)

2015
[28]

Cizek, Adv

J. Cizek, Adv. Chem. Phys. 14, 35 (1969)

1969
[29]

Shavitt and R

I. Shavitt and R. J. Bartlett, in Many-Body Methods in Chemistry and Physics: MBPT and Coupled-Cluster Theory, 1st ed. (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2009), p. 350

2009
[30]

Sahoo and B.P

B.K. Sahoo and B.P. Das Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 203001 (2018)

2018
[31]

Sakurai, B

A. Sakurai, B. K. Sahoo, K. Asahi, and B. P. Das, sub- mitted to Phys. Rev. A (2019)

2019
[32]

R. F. Bishop, Theor. Chim. Acta 80, 95 (1991)

1991
[33]

R. F. Bishop and J. S. Arponen, Int. J. Quantum Chem. 38, 197 (1990)

1990
[34]

J. S. Arponen, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 151, 311 (1983)

1983
[35]

V. V. Flambaum and J. S. M. Ginges, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032113 (2002)

2002
[36]

W. C. Haxton and E. M. Henley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 1937 (1983)

1983
[37]

Ban, J .Dobaczewski, J

S. Ban, J .Dobaczewski, J. Engel, and A. Shukla, Phys. Rev. C 82, 015501 (2010)

2010
[38]

Engel, M

J. Engel, M. Bender, J. Dobaczewski, J. H. de Jesus, and P. Olbratowski, Phys. Rev. C 68, 025501 (2003)

2003
[39]

I. S. Lim and P. Schwerdtfeger, Phys. Rev. A 70, 062501 (2004)

2004
[40]

I. S. Lim, H. Stoll, P. Schwerdtfeger, J. Chem. Phys.124, 034107 (2006)

2006
[41]

Borschevsky V

A. Borschevsky V. Pershina E. Eliav, and U. Kaldor Phys. Rev. A 87, 022502 (2013)

2013
[42]

Chattopadhyay, B.K

S. Chattopadhyay, B.K. Mani, and D. Angom, Phys. Rev. A 89, 022506 (2014)

2014
[43]

B. K. Sahoo and B. P. Das, J. Phys.: Conf. Series, 1041, 1 (2018)

2018
[44]

V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, and S. G. Porsev, Phys. Rev. A 80, 032120 (2009)

2009
[45]

K. V. P. Latha and P. R. Amjith, Phys. Rev. A 87, 022509 (2013)

2013
[46]

S. F. Boys, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A. 200, 542 (1950)

1950
[47]

Ishikawa, R

Y. Ishikawa, R. Baretty, and R. C. Binning, Jr., Chem. Phys. Lett. 121, 130 (1985)

1985
[48]

Mohanty and E

A. Mohanty and E. Clementi, in Modern Techniques in Computational Chemistry: MOTECC T M-89, edited by E. Clementi (Springer Netherlands, Escom, Leiden, Chap. 4, p. 169 (1989)

1989
[49]

K. G. Dyall et al., Comput. Phys. Commun. 55, 425 (1989)

1989
[50]

Lindgren, J

I. Lindgren, J. Morrison, Atomic Many-Body Theory, second edition (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986)

1986
[51]

Sakurai, B

A. Sakurai, B. K. Sahoo, and B. P. Das, Phys. Rev. A 97, 062510 (2018)

2018
[52]

Singh, B

Y. Singh, B. K. Sahoo, and B. P. Das, Phys. Rev. A 88, 062504 (2013)

2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [21]

Spevak, N

V. Spevak, N. Auerbach, and V.V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. C 56, 1357 (1997)

work page 1997

[2] [1]

Analysis of Electric Dipole Moment of $^{225}$Ra Atom using the Relativistic Normal Coupled-cluster Theory

We also compare our results for all three properties with previous calculations that employ diﬀerent many-body methods. Our αd value agrees very well with the results that are obtained by carrying out rigorous analyses using other variants of RCC methods. I. INTRODUCTION Atomic systems are excellent candidates to probe elec- tric dipole moments (EDMs), wh...

work page Pith review arXiv 1908

[3] [2]

Borschevsky et al [36] performed calculations to obtain αd using an uncontracted universal basis set in the rel- ativistic CCSD(T) method (RCCSD(T) method)

Later, they had revised its value to 251.12 ea3 0 [35] by using a j-averaged scalar relativistic pseudo poten- tial (ARPP) and allowing correlation among the outer- core and valence electrons in the CCSD(T) method. Borschevsky et al [36] performed calculations to obtain αd using an uncontracted universal basis set in the rel- ativistic CCSD(T) method (RCC...

work page

[4] [3]

All these RCC meth- ods adopt the ﬁnite-ﬁeld approach to evaluate αd. An- other calculation by Chattopadhyay et al [37] reported its value as 242.42 ea3 0 using the perturbed RCC theory like ours (denoted by PRCC method) by considering the Dirac-Coulomb-Breit Hamiltonian. Our earlier calcula- tion using RCCSD method and including the corrections from part...

work page

[5] [4]

By taking an average of the values from the RCCSD and RNCCSD methods employed in this work, we get an αd of 243.514 ea3

work page

[6] [5]

This value is in agreement with the above ﬁndings

Taking into account deviation of RCCSD and RNCCSD results from the average value, we recommend a value of 244(13) ea3 0 forαd of the Ra atom. This value is in agreement with the above ﬁndings. From these analyses of the αd result, we draw the conclusion that RCCSD method gives a lower estimate to a possible true value. It may be due to unequal cancellatio...

work page

[7] [6]

I. B. Khriplovich and S. Lamoreaux, CP Violation Without Strangeness, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg (1997)

work page 1997

[8] [8]

V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, J. S. M. Ginges, and M. G. Kozlov, Phys. Rev. A 66, 012111 (2002)

work page 2002